Introduction

Erving Goffman wrote relatively little about his own methods of work (Manning 1992, 142; Becker 2003, 660; Jacobsen and Kristiansen 2015, 41), and virtually nothing about social research methodology more generally, at one point suggesting that this could only amount to “rationalizations” (Goffman 1989, 124). He seems to have rejected the idea that fieldwork relied on specialized techniques, as well as discussion of “paradigms” ( Goffman 1981b; Verhoeven 1993). Nevertheless, he did provide a fairly detailed account of his Shetland Islands’ fieldwork in his PhD dissertation (Goffman 1953a) and offered some indications about his orientation in two interviews (Verhoeven 1983; Winkin 1984), as well as replying to criticism at one point (Denzin and Keller 1981; Goffman 1981b). There was at least one other occasion when he was induced to talk publicly about method, and what he said was secretly recorded and published after his death (Goffman 1989). A reasonably clear sense of his distinctive orientation can be gleaned from these sources, as well as from his substantive work; though they leave some significant issues unresolved (Manning 1992, chapter 7; Jacobsen and Kristiansen 2015; Manning 2016).

Of course, Goffman’s reluctance to talk about methodology has not stopped commentators writing about this aspect of his work. Indeed, while what he produced has been widely admired, his methods have often been criticized (see Williams 1988). These criticisms have varied considerably in character, coming from diverse directions: from those appealing to a traditional conception of the form ethnographies should take; from commentators relying on a positivistic conception of science; from proponents of grounded theory; and from conversation analysts. This reflects the fact that Goffman’s work highlights significant methodological tensions within social science, ones that are (if anything) even more challenging today than they were at the time he was writing.

In this chapter, we revisit the issue of Goffman’s methods, beginning with a look at the sorts of data he employed, and the uses to which he put these— in particular, the pursuit of comparative analysis to identify formal features in the social organization of interpersonal interaction.